This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 27th, 2011 at 8:33 am and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I’d thought Goff would need to hang on until the election, but he’s really struggling and more likley to take Labour backwards rathwer than forwards.
I think the best thing Goff could do now is to resign from leadership (he should still see out his term). Labour need to start rebuilding as soon as possible and that’s not going to happen under Goff.
Forget Parker and Cunlife, and too soon for Little.
I think Labour need to take a punt on a fresh new leader, don’t worry about the coming election, think of who would be a good bet to lift them in time for 2014. Any gains in November would be an interim bonus.
If they don’t do this now it’s going to be into next year until they start rebuilding properly (if they “get it” by then!).
Phil (6%) Goff, talk about your poisoned chalice! There is no chance he will resign before the election, simply because there is no-one in the Labour Party caucus who wants to be tarred with failure by association. Currently, the only thing keeping Phil Goff as leader are the pathetic poll ratings.
Act is no better off under Brash than it was under the toxic brand of Rodney Hide.
The Greens seen to be the big mover along with National and it would be interesting to see how much of the youth vote is being attracted to the Greens.
Goff is clearly a week option for labour but he will be the leader through to the election only because no one else in the labour caucus want to take on National in this election.
One can only hope that National gets a clear majority and that the influence of the minnow parties such as Maori, Act and United future are very limited in any coalition negotiations.
The referendum will be interesting on MMP. MMP in itself is fine however I would like to see a change where no party gets any list seats unless is achieves >5% of the party vote. That would stop the ridiculous deals being done in respect of Ohariu and Epsom which has nothing to do with the democratic process and everything to do with expediency and exploitation of a flawed electoral system.
I feel sorry for Labour supporters. WHY does the caucus persist with Phil Goff? Yes anything could happen, but anything could happen with a new leader, and if it doesn’t then things couldn’t get much worse. It’s like National in 2002. Labour rolled out an interesting tax policy, but Goff just can’t sell it.
Vernon Small’s piece is the most telling, given that he is a former Labour press secretary, and views the world through crimson-tinted glasses. When even jouno’s like him are distancing themselves from Goff and Labour it’s all over Red Rover.
I could be wrong, who knows, I am from time to time according to my wife, but for me this sums up why National and Key are where they are…
“Typically the polls narrowed as the election got closer, so National was not taking anything for granted.
On the preferred prime minister ratings, Mr Key said he thought people accepted that he would not get every decision right but that he tried do his job “as best as I possibly can”.
We had 9 years of rabid “wreckers and haters” rhetoric, and now we have competent and humble. I think we as a nation like that. And the morons at TheStandard still dont get it, and insist that the electorate are stupid. Le sigh. 🙂
Well, I was going to write a comment talking about which Labour MPs would be out of a job after the election, based on Labour getting 29% of the party vote.
Then I looked at Labour’s list, and saw the bunch of no-hopers and yes men/women stuck close to the cut-off in the mid-30’s on the list.
And that just hammers home why Labour is in such a malaise right now. The whole party is a talent-free zone. Lots of earnest time servers who’ve “earned their stripes” as student politicians, union leaders and parliamentary staffers. But no one – yep, I’ll go so far as to say no one – that the swing voters, who I’ll wager are city-based middle-class mums and dads, would switch their vote for.
National’s not all that better served with charismatic inspiring leaders. But they’ve got John Key and he’s single-handedly plugging that gap. And his supporting cast at least don’t dribble as badly as Labour’s mob.
out of interest … there seems to be a reported consensus that economic pundits approved the Labour CGT. The reality was most economists do approve of A CGT, just not the Labour version of the CGT (punish those who dont vote Labour and exempt those who may vote Labour)
I agree with virtualmark at 11:34 in that both the main parties have some pretty average MPs .. Most of the Labour ones would struggle organising a sausage sizzle. Then there are the Greens, a sort of Adams family, who are at the 8-10% mark in many polls .. how on earth does that happen??
I sense Jimmy A may change his mind and run again!
The logic behind the deal-making is to ensure that votes for minor parties are not wasted.
Consider Epsom in 2008. By tipping the nod and wink to Epsom voters to ensure Hide won, National made sure that the 3.65% of votes that went to ACT translated into five seats – which are now backing the National-led government. If Hide had not won, National would have won 60 seats (rather than 58) in a 122 seat Parliament, Dunne would have given then 1 more, but still, a trickier set of numbers. So the deal was in National’s interest.
If the one-seat-and-5%-not-needed clause were abolished, that 3.7% would have won no seats, and National would have far less to gain by giving Hide Epsom – only one ACT seat to help them out.
If National was sure ACT would get 5% then no deal would be needed.
Personally, I agree with Mark: the clause should be scrapped as a distortion. But it would be worth considering a preferential vote system within MMP for the party vote so that the 3.7%ers votes are not wasted but transferred to somewhere they will do some good.
“On those figures, Labour would lose five of its sitting MPs, including three of its rising stars, Stuart Nash, Kelvin Davis and Carmel Sepuloni” .. this little says it all really .. Carmel Sepuloni is a rising star say what?
I seem to remember a deal done in the past with Greens that turned out not to be needed as they made 5% and one done with Winston when NZF got less than 5% but he got 5 MPs because of Tauranga. Does anyone else have the same recollection?
In the graphs, it shows a large percentage of pollsters rated Selling Assets as Very Important or Important. However, I wonder if this is misleading? If I were asked if I thought Selling Assets important – I would say yes – as in partial sales allowing our citizens to have ownership and the government using the proceeds to pay down debt. Equally someone who was anti any asset sales would also answer that is was important.
Liarbores greatest problem besides being infested with gaggling socialist gits are their MPs are professional politicians. Most of these clowns are big on theory but very short on partial experience. Why would you trust these bludgers, the vast proportion having spent most of their natural lives suckling on the state tit. I don’t agree with a lot of what National has done but at least many of their MPs know what it means to earn a dollar and most importantly it’s not a dollar stolen off some else.